In a piece at The DispatchThomas Joscelyn outlines how fraught the situation in Afghanistan is. He points to recent gains by the Taliban, how many districts they presently control, and the likelihood of provincial capitols falling to the Taliban. What he doesn’t mention is how any of that would change without a massive, permanent military commitment to Afghanistan by the U. S. or why we should do that.
None of this represents a change. It has always been the case and would always be the case as long as we were committed to leaving, which four consecutive presidents have claimed.
The Taliban never had complete control of Afghanistan. The Northern Alliance controlled the northeast sector of the country abutting China right up to our invasion. Apparently recent Taliban successes have reactivated some of the old opposition. How much of Afghanistan the Taliban will control after the Afghan government falls is unknown at present.
Also, the old Taliban is dead and buried. The present Taliban are their sons and grandsons. Who knows if the old religious fires still burn in their breasts? They have signed on to BRI/OBOR, and that puts on the side of Russia and China as well as Pakistan and Iran, which might further moderate them.
Anyway, its their country now. We couldn’t control it with over 100,000 troops on the ground, and we’re not going back.
At this point, it is incumbent upon the people who want to stay to explain how the war will be won or to admit we can never leave. By their logic, the US should be occupying over half the world, and I have a feeling they agree.